yutrin
This is the insidiousness of your ad hoc definition flip flopping. You can claim you meant one and I’m addressing the other, and vice versa, whenever it suits you.
The linked article is about your “field of research” definition of the term “AI” while the quote from my original reply is addressing your “product goalposts” definition.
> It's identical in meaning.
Well I’ve tried but am unable to find a dictionary that defines “discover” as relying on reward functions. Can you link me to one?
Here’s a popular dictionary’s definition: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discover
>> Artificial Neural Networks … lack reward functions
Nice, you removed the pertinent context of “or did so in earlier iterations” with that ellipsis to make your point. Nice.
> Deeply and fundamentally wrong.
Read up on Minskys SNARCs which used trial and error learning without the need for a predefined reward function.
Aside from everything?!
I’ll bite.
1) He’s an individual yet his wealth surpasses the GDP of entire nations.
2) The market caps of his companies that informs that wealth are wildly and recklessly speculative. The company that innovated in its space is worth 1/3 of the company that has consistently oversold or completely failed to make good on promises(which frankly they all do regardless of their innovative effect).
3) And still, he’s currently holding one of his companies for ransom for even more.
> He built companies that provide breakthrough goods and services.
I must have misunderstood why his companies hired all of those employees.
Were they all just there cheering him on as he built it all himself?
Wait, I’m trying to help someone who thinks that giving an idiosyncratic definition of a broadly used term when someone asks for one requires that the provided definition be applied universally and accepted as correct without scrutiny?
> AI is the field of research for how to automatically create a best-fit function f(x) to maximise the expected value of some other reward function r(f(y)), given only examples x_0 … x_n
Cool, cool another ad hoc change. At least this one is more precise.
> I see you're unfamiliar with the entire history of scientific research software, too.
Project much?
https://ai100.stanford.edu/2016-report/section-i-what-artifi...
Read up on: Heuristic Search, Computer Vision, Natural Language Processing (NLP), Mobile Robotics, Artificial Neural Networks, and Expert Systems.
These fields of research either lack reward functions all together, or did so in earlier iterations.
> And at this point, I could replace you with an early version of [redacted]
> or [redacted] session with a prompt of "miss the point entirely"
Oh, I see why you are so passionate about these products now.
You can replace or dismiss anyone who points out your shortcomings with them.
This is exactly why I suggested you define the mental model you’re working with, because now I agree with mannykannot’s first gp addressing your original lament over those you interpret as “moving the goalposts”:
> If we are going to define AI as whatever AI researchers are working on then the only way the goalposts will not move is when they are not making progress.
Your “definition” of “AI” is full of wishy washy anthropomorphisms like “perceive” and “discover”, and elsewhere is so broad it could apply to just about anything.
An astable multivibrator with two LEDs at each output and a switch fits your definition.
The circuit is a “machine” that “perceives” the switch being pressed then “discovers” which side of the circuit will “maximize its chances of achieving the goal” of illuminating the environment.
> We have plenty of medicine without anyone saying "aspirin isn't medicine" or "heart transplants aren't medicine"
People do in fact say blood letting the humors “isn’t medicine”.
So you’re interpretation of “medicine” is yet another common example that also exhibits your apparently super rare “AI effect”?
But this attempt at analogy is just a distracting digression.
You appear to be changing the rigidity of your definition of “AI” ad hoc to satisfy whatever argument you’re trying to make in that moment.
In this thread alone you refer to products, the “aspirins”, as “AI”, but then claim your definition is that “AI” is a “field of research”, your “medicine”.
Take the press release from the product being discussed here and replace “AI” with “field of research”.
“Corpo just released a ‘field of research’ for your PC.”
Starting to “see how ridiculous your words look” yet?
I struggle to see how anything we have today is “AI”.
So you think we’ve done it?
We’ve solved the “AI” problem.
We can just stop working on it now?
> It's weird for me to actually encounter people doing this.
Rather than posturing, perhaps you could provide us with the definition of “AI” so we can all agree it’s here.
> art remains art even when the artist themselves becomes lost to time.
And if statements remain if statements. What’s your point?
> I wonder which other professions exhibit the same effect?
I disagree that there is any “effect” worth pondering, but here’s a biting quote that if written by a tech bro with unsubstantiated zeal for wasting planetary resources to engorge the wealth of unethical sociopaths it would have the word “goalposts” in it, and be the worse for it.
“Fashion is a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it every six months.” -Oscar Wilde